From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brambir v. Seifert

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 26, 1926
127 Misc. 603 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

June 26, 1926.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Kotzen Brothers [ Milton M. Siegel of counsel], for the appellants.

Max Schmer, for the respondent.


We cannot assume that the 1924 amendment of section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act (added by Laws of 1921, chap. 199, as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), providing for judgment for rent, was intended, contrary to well-established principles, to warrant the entry of judgment for rent against a tenant not personally served with the precept or who had not appeared in the proceeding.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, BIJUR, O'MALLEY and LEVY, JJ.


Summaries of

Brambir v. Seifert

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 26, 1926
127 Misc. 603 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Brambir v. Seifert

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES BRAMBIR and Another, Appellants, v. HARRY SEIFERT, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 26, 1926

Citations

127 Misc. 603 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
217 N.Y.S. 127

Citing Cases

Witt-Stuart Realty Corp. v. Mantell

In Katzman v. Engelhardt ( 125 Misc. 168) this court has held that a final order rendered upon the default of…

Rosebud Owner LLC v. Sang Tan Park

The court below apparently relied upon cases precluding entry of a money judgment against a tenant who…